Fairness. Surely, the world is a fair place right? I beg to differ. No matter where you go, there will always be inequity. However, there are some that are attempting to maintain that equity. Mr. Barack Obama is one of those few individuals. In his address, Obama discussed several topics that he thought needed change. Five of them are income, education, job reform, energy sources, and the environment.
Income- applying new rules to Wall St. to make sure a
crisis never happens again; reduce the deficit by 2 trillion dollars. 2005, the housing market was wrecked.
Education-teachers, stopping tuition for college; higher
education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in
America should be able to afford. High school students required to attend
school until they graduate.
Job Reform- innovators, no regulation for entrepreneurs,
new jobs opened by opening own developmental sources, reducing/eliminating outsourcing jobs
Energy Sources- Natural gas in the U.S. that could run the country for 100 years. Opening 75% of offshore oil and gas resources, Navy bought enough energy that could power a
quarter of American homes for a year. 100 billion dollars worth of taxes lowered
for businesses that invest in alternative forms of energy or being
Environment- safer, healthier regulations (ex: making trucks
and cars safer for social and environmental)
I believe that if Obama can ensure everything that he's listed, he has a good chance of being re-elected. As interesting as the Address was, I love how they have to clap every two sentences. I know that we have to be respectful of the president, but to clap at every little thing is a bit much in my opinion. I also think that this was a good way for Obama to jump start the notion of "re-elect me". He brushed over it enough and backed it up solidly with things he would do to make the nation better. He was also trying to appeal to both sides and I think that people would be fools to not support Obama because he is attempting to equal out both sides. Will this affect the election? You decide
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Gingrich: Establishment "right to be worried" about Gingrich nomination
Source: Reuters
Date: 22 January, 2012
Gingrich’s victory at the South Carolina primary was a surprise because many thought that Romney had it in the bag. This has added in some “volatility” to the race as Gingrich attacks Romney’s past work ethics and Romney attacks Gingrich’s past marriages. Personally, I see this as too much negativity. In the end, are the Republicans not meant to go against Obama and the Democrats? As of right now, they’re at each other’s throats. Yes, there is meant to be competition to find out who is the best man for the job, but does that not rob away the unity and any chance of beating the Obama machine? If there is a split party, there will be a split vote, and in the end they’ll in the crapper when the general election comes. I believe each man should work towards his own strengths and get over the petty weaknesses as they strap down for Florida. I still think Romney has a better chance than Gingrich, but only time can tell. Who do you want to see win?
Date: 22 January, 2012
Gingrich’s victory at the South Carolina primary was a surprise because many thought that Romney had it in the bag. This has added in some “volatility” to the race as Gingrich attacks Romney’s past work ethics and Romney attacks Gingrich’s past marriages. Personally, I see this as too much negativity. In the end, are the Republicans not meant to go against Obama and the Democrats? As of right now, they’re at each other’s throats. Yes, there is meant to be competition to find out who is the best man for the job, but does that not rob away the unity and any chance of beating the Obama machine? If there is a split party, there will be a split vote, and in the end they’ll in the crapper when the general election comes. I believe each man should work towards his own strengths and get over the petty weaknesses as they strap down for Florida. I still think Romney has a better chance than Gingrich, but only time can tell. Who do you want to see win?
Republican Rivals Clash At Raucous Debate
Source: Reuters
Date: 20 January, 2012
In this segment of a debate between the candidates, we focus on two topics. One being the recent claim of Gingrich's wife saying that he's having an affair, during the campaign. Gingrich claimed to be appalled for them to start the debate on such topic. He then later claims it completely false and is not true. The other major topic at hand was tax returns. A reporter asks the candidates "When exactly will you release your tax returns?" Gingrich answers seriously "a hour ago." The crowd rose up and applauded, as Santorum follows up saying that he had a bad time writing the check out and guarantees he paid a higher percentage than Romney. Romney is basically left speechless when asked directly by the reporter. Saying that he'll release it in April when it comes out, which is a bs excuse because by then he'll manage to scoop up a few more primaries and it wouldn't even matter.
Personally I feel as though both Santorum and Gingrich is now going to snatch the lead away from Romney despite what others have said. Yahoo news is now claiming the win in South Carolina for Gingrich probably wouldn't even matter, which says a lot about how the authors at Yahoo news feels. But besides that, the audience seemed to really enjoy Santorum and Gingrich's response. Will these tax returns really affect anything? Or is it just idle chit chat? You decide.
http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/01/20/republican-rivals-clash-at-raucous-debat?videoId=228845877&videoChannel=1003
Date: 20 January, 2012
In this segment of a debate between the candidates, we focus on two topics. One being the recent claim of Gingrich's wife saying that he's having an affair, during the campaign. Gingrich claimed to be appalled for them to start the debate on such topic. He then later claims it completely false and is not true. The other major topic at hand was tax returns. A reporter asks the candidates "When exactly will you release your tax returns?" Gingrich answers seriously "a hour ago." The crowd rose up and applauded, as Santorum follows up saying that he had a bad time writing the check out and guarantees he paid a higher percentage than Romney. Romney is basically left speechless when asked directly by the reporter. Saying that he'll release it in April when it comes out, which is a bs excuse because by then he'll manage to scoop up a few more primaries and it wouldn't even matter.
Personally I feel as though both Santorum and Gingrich is now going to snatch the lead away from Romney despite what others have said. Yahoo news is now claiming the win in South Carolina for Gingrich probably wouldn't even matter, which says a lot about how the authors at Yahoo news feels. But besides that, the audience seemed to really enjoy Santorum and Gingrich's response. Will these tax returns really affect anything? Or is it just idle chit chat? You decide.
http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/01/20/republican-rivals-clash-at-raucous-debat?videoId=228845877&videoChannel=1003
Perry Supports Gingrich, Gingrich's Marriage, and Colbert for President?
Author: Jon Stewart
Source: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Date: 19 January, 2012
Source: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Date: 19 January, 2012
Jon Stewart as always is a comical man and really, the only
reason why politics is interesting to me. In his show, he discussed through the
public policy polling, which was hosted by NBC, Obama has 41% support, Romney
behind him at 39% and jokingly, Colbert at 13%...after a week! Perry has
dropped out of the race and has endorsed Gingrich as a way to, you guessed it,
take down Romney. Gingrich is bashed on because of his marriages, where he
seems to be carcinogenic when it comes to wives.
Jon Stewart
isn’t biased; he makes fun of anyone in politics equally. I seriously think he
brings to light the good and bad of each person or issue that may arise. I
personally love how many of the former candidates are scrambling to bring down
Romney by endorsing someone a bit more conservative. As for Gingrich, his first
wife had cancer and his second had multiple sclerosis. Several clips are shown
where he supports a strong family and traditional values, but it just makes him
look like a hypocrite in light of his marriages. I just don’t know how a man
that can’t keep his pants up can keep a nation together. Will Gingrich be able to pull ahead of Romney? Will Colbert beat out Obama and the Republican nominee for president (joke obviously)? You decide.
Super PAC Ads?
Source: The Colbert
Report
Date: 17 January, 2012
“Do we have too much money in politics? I am astounded at how little money is allocated in politics.” As said by political pundit, George Wills. This is the basis of the video where super PACs are discussed. Romney’s super PAC has created an ad that depicts Santorum as a supporter of allowing felons to vote in prison. Romney refutes this by saying he hasn’t talked to his PAC in months to which Gingrich responds that with his little control over his PAC, how could he handle the nation? Colbert brings up his own super PAC ad which is basically a parody of Herman Cain’s ad. As comical as it is, this brings up the issue of bashing the other candidates. Negative, attacking ads are ok every now and then, but as they continue to mount and increase, the true view of the election is lost and that is who is the most suitable for a massively important position in the U.S. I believe the money that is being allocated should focus more on what the campaigner is good at and how they can make the nation better as president. Are positive ads about the hardworking campaigner more necessary, or are negative, bashing ads better? You decide.
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/tue-january-17-2012-jennifer-granholm
Date: 17 January, 2012
“Do we have too much money in politics? I am astounded at how little money is allocated in politics.” As said by political pundit, George Wills. This is the basis of the video where super PACs are discussed. Romney’s super PAC has created an ad that depicts Santorum as a supporter of allowing felons to vote in prison. Romney refutes this by saying he hasn’t talked to his PAC in months to which Gingrich responds that with his little control over his PAC, how could he handle the nation? Colbert brings up his own super PAC ad which is basically a parody of Herman Cain’s ad. As comical as it is, this brings up the issue of bashing the other candidates. Negative, attacking ads are ok every now and then, but as they continue to mount and increase, the true view of the election is lost and that is who is the most suitable for a massively important position in the U.S. I believe the money that is being allocated should focus more on what the campaigner is good at and how they can make the nation better as president. Are positive ads about the hardworking campaigner more necessary, or are negative, bashing ads better? You decide.
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/tue-january-17-2012-jennifer-granholm
Friday, January 20, 2012
Gov. Huckabee's South Carolina primary forecast
Source: Fox News
Date: 20 January, 2012
Governor Huckabee of South Carolina gives his opinion on who may win the primary. Consistently, he is saying Gingrich this and Gingrich that and it shows that he wants Gingrich to win this primary. He also considers the other candidates such as Santorum. Oh wait did I forget Paul? Because that was apparent in the on going conversation. They glazed over him as if he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning at all. Huckabee calls this a close race, but it's evident that he is behind Gingrich. Did I also mention that Chuck Norris is endorsing Gingrich? I didn't expect this and I bet no one else did either. Two major factors on who will win the primary is who can sway the Evangelicals and the women. Women make up 50% of the vote, so appealing to them is crucial. Furthermore, from my last blog it is clear that religious leaders have a great influence over the communities they reside in. Huckabee is blatantly partial to Gingrich, but as was said in the video, only time can tell the outcome. So who will win this primary? You decide.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1405324630001/gov-huckabees-south-carolina-primary-forecast/?playlist_id=86858
Date: 20 January, 2012
Governor Huckabee of South Carolina gives his opinion on who may win the primary. Consistently, he is saying Gingrich this and Gingrich that and it shows that he wants Gingrich to win this primary. He also considers the other candidates such as Santorum. Oh wait did I forget Paul? Because that was apparent in the on going conversation. They glazed over him as if he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning at all. Huckabee calls this a close race, but it's evident that he is behind Gingrich. Did I also mention that Chuck Norris is endorsing Gingrich? I didn't expect this and I bet no one else did either. Two major factors on who will win the primary is who can sway the Evangelicals and the women. Women make up 50% of the vote, so appealing to them is crucial. Furthermore, from my last blog it is clear that religious leaders have a great influence over the communities they reside in. Huckabee is blatantly partial to Gingrich, but as was said in the video, only time can tell the outcome. So who will win this primary? You decide.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1405324630001/gov-huckabees-south-carolina-primary-forecast/?playlist_id=86858
Jon Huntsman Drops Out of Presidential Race
Authors: Carol E. Lee & Neil King Jr.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Date: 16 January, 2012
Huntsman intends to end campaign for the presidential nomination race. A spokesperson for Huntsman says "He's going to endorse Gov. Romney tomorrow and urge the party to come together". Huntsman was proud of his finish in the New Hampshire primary, winning third place, but he feels like he's getting in the way of Romney who has a chance at defeating President Obama. He will formally resign on Monday morning in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and most likely will not take part in Monday night's republican debate. When Huntsman started his campaign in June "He promised to run on a platform of civility and competence, pledging to restore faith in the American political system." and expectations were high. Huntsman never became a popular with the Republicans because of his past relations with Obama and his position on social issues such as gay rights. Huntsman went "all in" for the New Hampshire primary but he only won third place. His confidence declined, and it showed when he said his expectations were low for South Carolina. He was polling in the single digits in South Carolina, and it was not going to get any better in Florida either. The Republican nominee pool is shrinking.
With Huntsman out of the picture who's the next dropout? Huntsman dropping out will now allow his fan base to choose another candidate. Huntsman says he will endorse Romney which may get Romney more voters and get farther away from the other candidates. With this new information I can now evaluate that these candidates will say anything to get ahead. The author seems to agree that Huntsman made the right choice by dropping out of the race. The author, Carol Lee, has the quotes that make Huntsman contradict himself by calling Romney unelectable, then endorsing him. Now with Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman out of the race and possibly Rick Perry in the upcoming week, the race is becoming smaller and smaller. The impact is pretty big and it's looking out to be a race between Romney, Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577163624064409552.html
Source: Wall Street Journal
Date: 16 January, 2012
Huntsman intends to end campaign for the presidential nomination race. A spokesperson for Huntsman says "He's going to endorse Gov. Romney tomorrow and urge the party to come together". Huntsman was proud of his finish in the New Hampshire primary, winning third place, but he feels like he's getting in the way of Romney who has a chance at defeating President Obama. He will formally resign on Monday morning in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and most likely will not take part in Monday night's republican debate. When Huntsman started his campaign in June "He promised to run on a platform of civility and competence, pledging to restore faith in the American political system." and expectations were high. Huntsman never became a popular with the Republicans because of his past relations with Obama and his position on social issues such as gay rights. Huntsman went "all in" for the New Hampshire primary but he only won third place. His confidence declined, and it showed when he said his expectations were low for South Carolina. He was polling in the single digits in South Carolina, and it was not going to get any better in Florida either. The Republican nominee pool is shrinking.
With Huntsman out of the picture who's the next dropout? Huntsman dropping out will now allow his fan base to choose another candidate. Huntsman says he will endorse Romney which may get Romney more voters and get farther away from the other candidates. With this new information I can now evaluate that these candidates will say anything to get ahead. The author seems to agree that Huntsman made the right choice by dropping out of the race. The author, Carol Lee, has the quotes that make Huntsman contradict himself by calling Romney unelectable, then endorsing him. Now with Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman out of the race and possibly Rick Perry in the upcoming week, the race is becoming smaller and smaller. The impact is pretty big and it's looking out to be a race between Romney, Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577163624064409552.html
Evangelicals Who Seek Unity, Support Santorum!
Authors: Erik Eckholm & Jeff Zeleny
Source: NY Times
Date: 14 January, 2012
"The shared goal, many participants said, was to see if it would be possible to unite conservative Christians around a single alternative to Mr. Romney and avoid repeating the experience of 2008, when their disarray helped Senator John McCain, whom they considered a moderate, to take the nomination."
The quote above is the basis of the article. This article shows that those with a certain prominence in the religious sector, have a massive impact on the community, and with this impact, it can sway the way people may think, choose, and vote. If they had come up with this earlier, then perhaps Romney wouldn't have won the Iowa Caucus or South Carolina, which is a deeply religious state. The authors seem to be saying that it's not too late to stand behind Santorum against Romney. The few individuals that spoke influenced 85 of 114 people to support Santorum. This expressive opinion and overwhelming impact will affect those who have even considered to stand behind Romney.
I believe that with a much more consistent amount of support like this, Santorum may have an ace up his sleeve, but that is only if the support and influence spreads far and wide. Only time can tell who will win. Once again, it is shown that some people just aren't feeling Romney and that they will go to great lengths to change the ideals of potential voters to make sure he won't win the nomination. Will all this buzz take down Romney? You decide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/politics/conservative-religious-leaders-seeking-unity-vote-to-back-rick-santorum.html?_r=1&hp
Source: NY Times
Date: 14 January, 2012
"The shared goal, many participants said, was to see if it would be possible to unite conservative Christians around a single alternative to Mr. Romney and avoid repeating the experience of 2008, when their disarray helped Senator John McCain, whom they considered a moderate, to take the nomination."
The quote above is the basis of the article. This article shows that those with a certain prominence in the religious sector, have a massive impact on the community, and with this impact, it can sway the way people may think, choose, and vote. If they had come up with this earlier, then perhaps Romney wouldn't have won the Iowa Caucus or South Carolina, which is a deeply religious state. The authors seem to be saying that it's not too late to stand behind Santorum against Romney. The few individuals that spoke influenced 85 of 114 people to support Santorum. This expressive opinion and overwhelming impact will affect those who have even considered to stand behind Romney.
I believe that with a much more consistent amount of support like this, Santorum may have an ace up his sleeve, but that is only if the support and influence spreads far and wide. Only time can tell who will win. Once again, it is shown that some people just aren't feeling Romney and that they will go to great lengths to change the ideals of potential voters to make sure he won't win the nomination. Will all this buzz take down Romney? You decide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/politics/conservative-religious-leaders-seeking-unity-vote-to-back-rick-santorum.html?_r=1&hp
Gingrich ads could backfire on GOP says strategist
Source: Reuters
Date: 12 January, 2012
This talk show entails a representative from Reuters, Rhonda Schaffler, that interviewed John Mccain's former campaign advisor, Taylor Griffin. Griffin believes that if Gingrich's ads and tactics don't slow down Romney's war path, then Romney basically has the nomination ready for him on a silver platter. Gingrich had a strong outcome in South Carolina, obtaining 20% of the votes while Romney gained 29%. Griffin says that if Gingrich can't win Florida's primary, he is royally screwed. His view on Paul is an "anti-establishment candidate" which means that regardless of wanting to win or not, he's going to promote himself.
The talk show is Griffin's viewpoint on the election and being a former campaign advisor, he has experience with these kinds of things. The video was clearly showing that people should back Gingrich while bashing on Romney. Shaffler did not show any opinion or emotion on whether Griffin was right or wrong. Personally, I believe that everyone seems to be ganging up on Romney because of his moderate and sometimes flip flop stance. The Republican party needs to be united if they want to have a chance to take down the Obama machine, and that means that the nominee has to appeal to deep conservative voters, something Romney may not be able to do in the eyes of some. Will these attack ads work against Romney? You decide.
http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/01/12/gingrich-ads-could-backfire-on-gop-says?videoId=228491832&videoChannel=1003
Date: 12 January, 2012
This talk show entails a representative from Reuters, Rhonda Schaffler, that interviewed John Mccain's former campaign advisor, Taylor Griffin. Griffin believes that if Gingrich's ads and tactics don't slow down Romney's war path, then Romney basically has the nomination ready for him on a silver platter. Gingrich had a strong outcome in South Carolina, obtaining 20% of the votes while Romney gained 29%. Griffin says that if Gingrich can't win Florida's primary, he is royally screwed. His view on Paul is an "anti-establishment candidate" which means that regardless of wanting to win or not, he's going to promote himself.
The talk show is Griffin's viewpoint on the election and being a former campaign advisor, he has experience with these kinds of things. The video was clearly showing that people should back Gingrich while bashing on Romney. Shaffler did not show any opinion or emotion on whether Griffin was right or wrong. Personally, I believe that everyone seems to be ganging up on Romney because of his moderate and sometimes flip flop stance. The Republican party needs to be united if they want to have a chance to take down the Obama machine, and that means that the nominee has to appeal to deep conservative voters, something Romney may not be able to do in the eyes of some. Will these attack ads work against Romney? You decide.
http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/01/12/gingrich-ads-could-backfire-on-gop-says?videoId=228491832&videoChannel=1003
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The New Hampshire Primary: Boost Or Bust
Author: NPR Staff
Source: NPR
Date: 8 January, 2012
New Hampshire holds the title of being the state where the first primary is always held, something they are very proud of. Apparently, every candidate that has won in both Iowa and New Hampshire go on to win the party nomination.
This bears good news to Romney because of his victory in Iowa and the large support he has in New Hampshire. Pat Buchanan once bid for support in New Hampshire as a Democratic candidate against Bob Dole in 1996 and actually was pushed forward massively by the state. However, he lost the nomination against Dole in the end. He says from experience that candidates that go against the status quo are often more welcomed and supported by New Hampshire people. This is known as the "New Hampshire" effect where the state is the tie breaker, the decider. Should Romney win, he faces a greater challenge by being tested of his skills as a diplomat and a politician. Buchanan states that Romney "...will have to go down and unite this party around the proposition that all of us may disagree on some issues, but we all agree on the proposition that the country can't take four more years of Barack Obama." New Hampshire is the make or break it state, and with the way things are, Romney may have this in the bag, but time has shown sometimes the unexpected can happen. Will he be able to hold onto the lead and pave his way to the nomination? You decide.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144873071/the-new-hampshire-primary-boost-or-bust
Source: NPR
Date: 8 January, 2012
New Hampshire holds the title of being the state where the first primary is always held, something they are very proud of. Apparently, every candidate that has won in both Iowa and New Hampshire go on to win the party nomination.
This bears good news to Romney because of his victory in Iowa and the large support he has in New Hampshire. Pat Buchanan once bid for support in New Hampshire as a Democratic candidate against Bob Dole in 1996 and actually was pushed forward massively by the state. However, he lost the nomination against Dole in the end. He says from experience that candidates that go against the status quo are often more welcomed and supported by New Hampshire people. This is known as the "New Hampshire" effect where the state is the tie breaker, the decider. Should Romney win, he faces a greater challenge by being tested of his skills as a diplomat and a politician. Buchanan states that Romney "...will have to go down and unite this party around the proposition that all of us may disagree on some issues, but we all agree on the proposition that the country can't take four more years of Barack Obama." New Hampshire is the make or break it state, and with the way things are, Romney may have this in the bag, but time has shown sometimes the unexpected can happen. Will he be able to hold onto the lead and pave his way to the nomination? You decide.http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144873071/the-new-hampshire-primary-boost-or-bust
Rick Santorum sounds alarm over Iranian 'theocracy'
Author: Robin Abcarian
Source: LA Times
Date: 8 January, 2012
Rick Santorum does not classify himself as a warmonger, but voters are concerned over his stance on Iran and the potential nuclear weapons that it may posses. According to Santorum, living with a nuclear Soviet Russia and a nuclear North Korea was fine compared to a nuclear Iran for one simple reason, religion. Iran is a theocracy and as such religion and and institution are very much aligned with one another. Santorum states that it is a "...theocracy that has deeply embedded beliefs that the afterlife is better than this life .… When your principal virtue is to die for Allah, then it’s not a deterrent to have a nuclear threat .… It is in fact an encouragement for them to use their nuclear weapon.” I mean come on, it's not just the job of the U.S. to be a world policing force. If they want to do it, so be it, but until they actually start something, there is no reason to be fretting over it. I'm not saying to ignore it completely, but keep your options open. To further raise clout, he remained silent on whether or not he would go to war with Iran to stop any nuclear growth. This will hurt his support because this nation does not need to go to war so soon, and his silence shows that A) he may be unsure of what to do should the situation arise and B) that as a president his unwillingness to answer questions will come off as animosity between him and the populace.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-santorum-sounds-alarm-over-iranian-theocracy-20120108,0,7144004.story?track=rss
Source: LA Times
Date: 8 January, 2012
Rick Santorum does not classify himself as a warmonger, but voters are concerned over his stance on Iran and the potential nuclear weapons that it may posses. According to Santorum, living with a nuclear Soviet Russia and a nuclear North Korea was fine compared to a nuclear Iran for one simple reason, religion. Iran is a theocracy and as such religion and and institution are very much aligned with one another. Santorum states that it is a "...theocracy that has deeply embedded beliefs that the afterlife is better than this life .… When your principal virtue is to die for Allah, then it’s not a deterrent to have a nuclear threat .… It is in fact an encouragement for them to use their nuclear weapon.” I mean come on, it's not just the job of the U.S. to be a world policing force. If they want to do it, so be it, but until they actually start something, there is no reason to be fretting over it. I'm not saying to ignore it completely, but keep your options open. To further raise clout, he remained silent on whether or not he would go to war with Iran to stop any nuclear growth. This will hurt his support because this nation does not need to go to war so soon, and his silence shows that A) he may be unsure of what to do should the situation arise and B) that as a president his unwillingness to answer questions will come off as animosity between him and the populace.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-santorum-sounds-alarm-over-iranian-theocracy-20120108,0,7144004.story?track=rss
Pro-Gingrich PAC Details Ads Against Romney’s Bain Role
Authors: Trip Gabriel & Nicholas Confessore
Source: NY Times
Date: 8 January, 2012
Sheldon Adelson, a casino owning billionaire and long time supporter of Gingrich has come through again by giving a super PAC to him. The amount of money in question is five million dollars and the use of the money appropriated will be used in a series of advertisements to attack Romney and depict him as a greedy capitalist that puts people out of jobs and ruins businesses. A thirty minute movie was made that depicts Romney's role in the company Bain Capital. It shows how he took part in laying off workers while also lining his coffers with money. The Republican platform is based on being pro-free market, which as said by Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman of Romney, is "... puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise. This is the type of criticism we’ve come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies..." Democrats would have a reason to use this as a way to reduce Romney's credibility, but as a fellow Republican, why?
I see this as a desperate measure by Gingrich as Romney plows forward towards the nomination. No doubt his success in Iowa and the large amount of support in New Hampshire is cause for alarm, but as I posted in my last blog, Romney has more support in South Carolina than Gingrich. This could actually be seen as a petty attack on Romney and Gingrich could lose support. Romney himself spoke against Gingrich stating that he helped to open Staples while working at Bain Capital, which is going strong and has given thousands upon thousands of jobs. The people of South Carolina won't be so quick to change their support in my opinion. So, in the end will this affect Romney's support? You decide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/us/politics/pro-gingrich-pac-plans-tv-ads-against-romney.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Source: NY Times
Date: 8 January, 2012
Sheldon Adelson, a casino owning billionaire and long time supporter of Gingrich has come through again by giving a super PAC to him. The amount of money in question is five million dollars and the use of the money appropriated will be used in a series of advertisements to attack Romney and depict him as a greedy capitalist that puts people out of jobs and ruins businesses. A thirty minute movie was made that depicts Romney's role in the company Bain Capital. It shows how he took part in laying off workers while also lining his coffers with money. The Republican platform is based on being pro-free market, which as said by Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman of Romney, is "... puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise. This is the type of criticism we’ve come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies..." Democrats would have a reason to use this as a way to reduce Romney's credibility, but as a fellow Republican, why?
I see this as a desperate measure by Gingrich as Romney plows forward towards the nomination. No doubt his success in Iowa and the large amount of support in New Hampshire is cause for alarm, but as I posted in my last blog, Romney has more support in South Carolina than Gingrich. This could actually be seen as a petty attack on Romney and Gingrich could lose support. Romney himself spoke against Gingrich stating that he helped to open Staples while working at Bain Capital, which is going strong and has given thousands upon thousands of jobs. The people of South Carolina won't be so quick to change their support in my opinion. So, in the end will this affect Romney's support? You decide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/us/politics/pro-gingrich-pac-plans-tv-ads-against-romney.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Romney's Week: A Squeaker, A Love Fest and A Shrug
Source: NPR
Date: 7 January, 2012
In this broadcast, Romney's victory at the Iowa Caucus and what is going to happen next is discussed. Romney came first in the caucus with Santorum in second with a difference of eight votes, the smallest margin in the history of voting in Iowa. Some say there might be discrepancies in the counting of the votes, but as far as I can tell, Romney won.
A political scientist by the name of Larry Sabato states that Romney is in a better position, not because he won, but because of who won second and third. Santorum and Paul, compared to Gingrich and Perry, are far easier combatants. Gingrich is a great orator while Perry has the money to buy out this election. This sets the stage as we head to New Hampshire, which coincidentally, is loving Romney and his views. A recent Marist poll by NBC news shows that Romney has 42% of support from voters, which is miles ahead of Paul's measly 22% support. Romney is so confident that he has traveled to South Carolina, which is Conservative territory. Romney himself is considered more moderate and as such will not garner as much support down there, but another poll by CNN actually shows that his popularity has risen from 20% to 37%. Compared to Santorum's 19% and Gingrich's 18% (who previously had the most support in SC) Romney has really pulled ahead. Only time will tell who pulls out as the winner, but from what I see, Romney is really pulling ahead. He has shown that he doesn't need fans or a "love fest", people just need to vote for him.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/07/144804626/romneys-week-a-squeaker-a-love-fest-and-a-shrug
Rick Santorum On Earmarks: It's 'A Compliment To Be Attacked'
Author: Elise Foley
Source: Huffington Post
Date: 30 December, 2011
Source: Huffington Post
Date: 30 December, 2011
Rick Santorum has been rising in the polls, reaching 3rd in the Iowa Caucus. Rick Perry has attacked Santorum by calling him a "prolific earmarker" and a weak conservative fiscally. Santorum brushed off Perry's remark with an attitude something along the lines of "haters gonna hate". His defense for earmarking was that Congress holds the power to appropriate funds, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
So, what is earmarking? It is a tactic used by politicians to direct funding to projects that benefit the area that the politician represents. It adds onto a bill, which if passed, the thing that is being earmarked must be passed as well. It can also exempt taxes and mandates. A good example would be the Keystone Pipeline that was earmarked onto the payroll tax cut extension that Obama was pushing for. This mentality of a good offense is a good defense is working out in Santorum's favor. He welcomes the attack and has been gaining support. This is one of the few articles that I have perused that does not talk about the candidates that are out there, such as Romney, Perry, or Paul and is a welcome experience for learning about the lesser known candidates. Foley's article is unbiased and shows quotes from both sides as well as no criticism of either side. His popularity is rising, but I doubt it will make a difference against the more prominent candidates such as Romney and Paul.
Newt Gingrich weeps as he recalls his mom
Author: Susan Page
Source: USA Today
Date: 30 December, 2011
During an Iowa town hall conference, Newt Gingrich showed tears of sadness and remorse when he was asked about his late mother. His mother, Kit Gingrich, died in 2003 after suffering a bipolar disorder as well as depression, turning into brain disorders. Newt grew up with a distraught mother, but he says, "I identify my mother with being happy, loving life, having a sense of joy with her friends" and Newt became teary eyed and stumbled over what he was saying. He acknowledged that he got emotional and says he does policy better than he does his personal life. He devotes his candidacy for his mother. Showing his tears and emotions is reminiscent of the time Hillary Clinton cried at a New Hampshire conference. It was a turning point where she gained support from voters.
Were Gingrich's tear genuine or fake? In my opinion, it was just a tactic in an attempt to gain support the same way that Clinton did. The articles and debates that I have come across with Gingrich show that he isn't fit to be president. In fact from this article itself, it shows that Gingrich can't keep his personal life split from politics. While the death of a family member is always hard, it doesn not change the fact that duty and personal life must remain separate. If a president were to have a mental breakdown because of something similar to this, then how would the nation function? I am now of legal age to vote and you can bet he isn't getting my support, nor is this sob story going to get him more support. A president shouldn't be totally mechanical, but he also shouldn't go off on tangents such as these because then we lose focus on what is really important, his effectiveness as a possible president. These petty tactics need to stop because people aren't gullible and they won't take in these tricks for long, which means in the end, Gingrich himself will lose support from the GOP.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/newt-gingrich-cries-mother/1
Source: USA Today
Date: 30 December, 2011
During an Iowa town hall conference, Newt Gingrich showed tears of sadness and remorse when he was asked about his late mother. His mother, Kit Gingrich, died in 2003 after suffering a bipolar disorder as well as depression, turning into brain disorders. Newt grew up with a distraught mother, but he says, "I identify my mother with being happy, loving life, having a sense of joy with her friends" and Newt became teary eyed and stumbled over what he was saying. He acknowledged that he got emotional and says he does policy better than he does his personal life. He devotes his candidacy for his mother. Showing his tears and emotions is reminiscent of the time Hillary Clinton cried at a New Hampshire conference. It was a turning point where she gained support from voters.
Were Gingrich's tear genuine or fake? In my opinion, it was just a tactic in an attempt to gain support the same way that Clinton did. The articles and debates that I have come across with Gingrich show that he isn't fit to be president. In fact from this article itself, it shows that Gingrich can't keep his personal life split from politics. While the death of a family member is always hard, it doesn not change the fact that duty and personal life must remain separate. If a president were to have a mental breakdown because of something similar to this, then how would the nation function? I am now of legal age to vote and you can bet he isn't getting my support, nor is this sob story going to get him more support. A president shouldn't be totally mechanical, but he also shouldn't go off on tangents such as these because then we lose focus on what is really important, his effectiveness as a possible president. These petty tactics need to stop because people aren't gullible and they won't take in these tricks for long, which means in the end, Gingrich himself will lose support from the GOP.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/newt-gingrich-cries-mother/1
Time for Ron Paul to Fully Answer Racism Charges
Author:Michael Tomasky
Source: The Daily Beast
Date: 23 December, 2011
Source: The Daily Beast
Date: 23 December, 2011
It's
normal for the media to attack the popular candidate, it thrives on bashing those with a certain prominence in society. First it was Cain's sexual
harassment, then to Gingrich's affairs, and now recently are the accusations of
Ron Paul being racist. Ron Paul once was a publisher for a newspaper that contained some racist material within its contents. The author, Michael
Tomasky, thinks that Paul should own up to these racist claims and even mentions the
CNN interview that Ron Paul had with reporter Gloria Borger. CNN edited the interview,
but an UNCUT video has been released and I don't think Tomasky has seen
it, or at least it seems so in his article. Michael advises, "So here is the first thing Paul can do, which is to
provide an answer to a simple question: If he didn’t write those sentences, who
did? Why not say?" In the interview Ron Paul states that he didn't even read
most of the articles he published, he was still a practicing
doctor.
If the public buys into the Tomasky's propaganda then
Ron Paul might lose some credibility. Tomasky is incredibly biased against
Ron Paul, "This might not disqualify Paul
from serving in Congress. There are all kinds of loons there. But for president,
surely we can all agree that we can do better than this." Ron Paul is known to be a rights activist and should
be the considered the complete opposite of a racist. The UNCUT interview has
gained several views and earned a front page spot on the Youtube page, which is
how I stumbled upon the interview even before reading this article talking about
the edited interview. I don't think the racial attack is going to hurt Ron Paul
that much, in Iowa Polls he's leading the other candidates. I believe that
voters won't be phased by the media trying to hurt frontrunners in this bid for the presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)